dwai

What Happened? Nothing!

Recommended Posts

 there is no illusion when only truth is seen both manifest and un-manifest. which is far more difficult and complete than withdrawing to  only the un-manifest.

Edited by 3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

According to the Advaita philosophy, there is only one thing real in the universe, which it calls Brahman; everything else is unreal, manifested and manufactured out of Brahman by the power of M√Ęy√Ę. To reach back to that Brahman is our goal. We are, each one of us, that Brahman, that Reality, plus this Maya. If we can get rid of this Maya or ignorance, then we become what we really are.

- Swami Vivekananda

 

 

Doesn't something have to happen to 'get rid of' Maya or ignorance? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that if there is only non-dual "God" (ultimately and besides any mis-perception and or mis-identification)  thus a complete summation is that there is only God...which includes everything and non-thing, manifest and un-manifest.  (btw. note the apparent contradiction above of "plus this Maya", I say contradiction because God plus God as seeming Maya or plus Maya is still God, thus God can not get not rid of God or seeming Maya.  In other terms Shiva can not rid of Shakti.

 

 

Edited by 3bob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 3bob said:

My take is that if there is only non-dual "God" (ultimately and besides any mis-perception and or mis-identification)  thus a complete summation is that there is only God...which includes everything and non-thing, manifest and un-manifest.  (btw. note the apparent contradiction above of "plus this Maya", I say contradiction because God plus God as seeming Maya or plus Maya is still God, thus God can not get not rid of God or seeming Maya.  In other terms Shiva can not rid of Shakti.

 

 

 

Agreed, if there is only non-dual God. In my duality though, there is a "God", there is my soul, and there is my Karma. To me my soul is distinct from "God", but it has the potential to communicate with "God" if I sort out my Karma. 

 

Ramana said there was a process, peeling away the layers of not-self I think, and I get that to an extent, certainly more than 'non-duality', to me there is a fundamental problem with all is God and I am God thus 'fait accompli'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say non-duality is big enough, so to speak, to contain duality, (which may sound weird) thus  there is no disconnect with time and space and particular souls or beings that can only be in particular times and spaces.  The saying, "jiva is Shiva" does not deny jiva... 

 

In Taoism the Tao is not said to deny or disconnect from the One, Two, Three or the Ten-Thousand, so I believe one could also say the Tao (that can not be named) is also big enough to contain the named.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Agreed, if there is only non-dual God. In my duality though, there is a "God", there is my soul, and there is my Karma. To me my soul is distinct from "God", but it has the potential to communicate with "God" if I sort out my Karma. 

 

Ramana said there was a process, peeling away the layers of not-self I think, and I get that to an extent, certainly more than 'non-duality', to me there is a fundamental problem with all is God and I am God thus 'fait accompli'. 

:) The problem is when we stop mid-way in the process of "stripping away the layers of not-self".  Once it is complete, it will become apparent that the layers of "not-self" were only ideas, thoughts that arose in the Self and dissipated in the Self. So the question then becomes -- Is an idea "real" (Here Real means independently existent)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  btw.  I'd say Shakti is real and does not perish, although the forms that then take further shape from pure Shakti do have various lifetime lengths. 

Edited by 3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 3bob said:

  btw.  I'd say Shakti is real and does not perish, although the forms that then take further shape from pure Shakti do have various lifetime lengths. 

Shakti is not separate from Shiva. Like Heat and light are not separate from the Sun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, and with that said the further forms are not really separate either per connected emanation, thus can that which is not really separate be tagged as strictly unreal or illusion, I'd say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 3bob said:

ok, and with that said the further forms are not really separate either per connected emanation, thus can that which is not really separate be tagged as strictly unreal or illusion, I'd say no.

Agreed. Lets take this thread forward logically... 

 

But it cannot really be said to be independently ‚Äúreal‚ÄĚ either. What that means is, the phenomena need awareness to exist, not the other way round. Shiva doesn‚Äôt NEED shakti, shakti is his nature. So is shakti independently existent? No. The two are not mutually interdependent either. There is nothing apart from Shiva.¬†

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Agreed. Lets take this thread forward logically... 

Oh, please don't do that.  That would likely get me involved and I doubt you want that in this thread.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Oh, please don't do that.  That would likely get me involved and I doubt you want that in this thread.

 

You my friend are always welcome on any thread, as far as I am concerned :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dwai said:

:) The problem is when we stop mid-way in the process of "stripping away the layers of not-self".  Once it is complete, it will become apparent that the layers of "not-self" were only ideas, thoughts that arose in the Self and dissipated in the Self. So the question then becomes -- Is an idea "real" (Here Real means independently existent)?

 

These layers are ingrained and dominant until they are stripped away, and the stripping away is a necessary process. But after they are stripped away I am still left with both a mind and a soul, my mind will disappear when I die, but my soul will remain as a distinct entity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 3bob said:

I'd say non-duality is big enough, so to speak, to contain duality, (which may sound weird) thus  there is no disconnect with time and space and particular souls or beings that can only be in particular times and spaces.  The saying, "jiva is Shiva" does not deny jiva... 

 

In Taoism the Tao is not said to deny or disconnect from the One, Two, Three or the Ten-Thousand, so I believe one could also say the Tao (that can not be named) is also big enough to contain the named.

 

Does non-duality distinguish between good and evil, or is an evil act undifferentiated from God? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

These layers are ingrained and dominant until they are stripped away, and the stripping away is a necessary process. But after they are stripped away I am still left with both a mind and a soul, my mind will disappear when I die, but my soul will remain as a distinct entity. 

What is this "soul"? Is that something separate from your awareness? Also your mind is not real...it is just modification of awareness. How can something that is not real die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

Does non-duality distinguish between good and evil, or is an evil act undifferentiated from God? 

Good and Evil are relative values we ascribe to things in the dualistic mode. You eating chicken might be good (food) for you. Is it good for the chicken? Good and Evil are always in context of a perspective, a vantage point. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

per dharma/karma evil acts earn one time in the hell realms, while good acts earn one time in the heaven or earth realms, such are still realms but of major differences in the closeness to the threshold of the Self (which is beyond relative good and evil realms) per the Upanishads.  Also in Hinduism evil has no independent root and there is no eternal hell of punishment like in Christianity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dwai said:

What is this "soul"? Is that something separate from your awareness? Also your mind is not real...it is just modification of awareness. How can something that is not real die?

 

The soul is separate from awareness, it is the thing that may be born anew, the immortal spirit. The mind is a function of the brain, when the brain dies the mind dies, what remains aware is only the soul. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dwai said:

Good and Evil are relative values we ascribe to things in the dualistic mode. You eating chicken might be good (food) for you. Is it good for the chicken? Good and Evil are always in context of a perspective, a vantage point. 

 

Is an evil act only evil from the perspective of the one made to suffer - for example was the Holocaust evil only from the perspective of those who suffered, but not intrinsically evil or bad or negative? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3bob said:

per dharma/karma evil acts earn one time in the hell realms, while good acts earn one time in the heaven or earth realms, such are still realms but of major differences in the closeness to the threshold of the Self (which is beyond relative good and evil realms) per the Upanishads.  Also in Hinduism evil has no independent root and there is no eternal hell of punishment like in Christianity...

 

Possibly there is Self beyond the heaven and hell realms, but accessing the heaven realm might be the best we could manage from here. If there is any unspent karma attached to us we can't even access the heaven realm, how could we be expected to go even beyond this to a non-dual self? 

 

To claim non-dual achievement is just an inflated spiritual ego if the person retains any vasanas or samskaras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grace makes the choice and is more powerful than karma, also it  can not be manipulated by any forces of the heaven or hell realms....

 

where we go (so to speak) is where we already are - the Self, for there is nothing that can be gained or lost of the Self which is right under our noses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my awareness is not with my soul, then I am not already there. Perhaps to me my soul is the carrier of my karma, so it is not already perfect, it has to be cleared of its karma to begin to thrive. 

 

This to me is not a matter of grace, but of knowing how to clear karma. Learning to read is a process, hoping and praying won't make it happen, but being instructed on how to read we learn, it seems just as simple with removing karma, except there are no teachers.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bindii, I'd say you are talking about evolution of something, while Self is not evolutionary, changing or in need of doing something for perfection.

We can not really wrap our head around that, nor are forms of knowledge  equal to the power of Grace (which is not to be equated with blind faith or wishful thinking) that enables spiritual realization, a realization that can not be found per a mind of acquired knowledge, although knowledge (which is also a thing so to speak) has its place and purpose.

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am talking about perfecting the soul, and perhaps this is just a step in the realisation of Self, but then it is also true that I see this step as the necessary initial step towards your proposed realisation of Self, which I don't see as possible from where we stand now. 

 

To me the perfected soul is the immortal spirit that both Neidan and Christianity posit as the ultimate aim, and any Self that may exist beyond this point is putting the cart before the horse for me. 

 

As to grace, I do still believe that we are to find the place where grace can enter,  maybe it enters numerous times for different reasons, there is the grace that can end suffering in a moment, but I perceive other gifts that can be bestowed on us through grace as well, 'gifts of the spirit' that came down to the apostles for example, and it is these that require effort from myself first. BTW I don't know what you perceive as spiritual realisation though I would be interested to find out, I suspect it might be different to my aims and understanding. 

 

 

 

Edited by Bindi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites